FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22051
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 22051 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Characterize Genetic Differences and Distribution of Freshwater Mussels |
| Proposal ID | 22051 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | David A. Close |
| Mailing address | PO Box 638 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 |
| Phone / email | 5412787615 / davidclose@ctuir.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Gary James |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Umatilla |
| Short description | Conduct freshwater mussel surveys to assess their status and test for geographical genetic differences among the western pearlshell mussel, Margaritifera falcata. |
| Target species | Freshwater mussels |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.9144 | -119.3384 | Umatilla River |
| 44.9167 | -119.3015 | Middle Fork John Day River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.25 project leader 1.0 fish biologist 1 2.08 fish technicians (temps) gis technician @ 1000.00 | $81,252 |
| Fringe | 30% (full time); 19% (temps) | $10,350 |
| Supplies | 6 wet suits and gear @ 500 a person 4 hand held gps units @ 350.00 Field materials | $5,000 |
| Travel | GSA (22 months @ $215/mo: 40,000 miles @ $0.23/mile; Ins. @ $52/mo. site visits 180 days @ $30.00 | $20,474 |
| Indirect | 34% of personnel, supplies, travel | $39,380 |
| Capital | 0 | $0 |
| PIT tags | 0 | $0 |
| Subcontractor | # of tags: WDFW Genetics Laboratory | $46,930 |
| Other | $0 | |
| $203,386 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $203,386 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $203,386 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission | 0.10 FTE for Dr. Kenneth Currens | $6,000 | in-kind |
| U.S. Forest Service | 0.24 FTE for John Sanchez and forest service techs. | $7,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
The proposal is marginally innovative because microsatellite DNA analysis would be used, and it would be the first systematic survey of freshwater mussels at the subbasin level. Conducting the distribution survey is especially important, when it is believed that mussels may no longer be present. The survey for distribution and abundance portion of the proposal is not innovative and could be done for significantly less money than that requested by the proposal. Genetic analysis is not warranted at this time, but tissues should be collected and archived in the National Biological Service Tissue Repository. Genetic analysis could be done later, if warranted. Why not propose genetic analyses after surveys and sample collections have been accomplished, when some idea of geographic distribution is in hand? The genetic research collaborators/subcontractors were viewed as very competent.Comment:
Assessment of current species range should be completed first. Although this project has merit, it is lower priority than the leading proposals.Comment:
Assessment of current species range should be completed first. Although this project has merit, it is lower priority than the leading proposals.